Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Hanson opened the meeting to the public. <br />Todd Sommer, 285 Twin Lake Traii, asked why consideration is not given to locating a park <br />in Vadnais Heights where a park already exists at the east end of Lake Vadnais. There is a <br />lot of acreage that would accommodate ball fields and create the kind of park residents in the <br />southein pa~•t of Vadnais Heights have been requesting. He suggested that negoriations be <br />initiated with the St. Paul Water Utiliry for a land purchase. Mr. Sommer stated that he <br />would not want public access to the lake. He would rather see more docks from single <br />family lots with a controlled environment than a few docks and a clustered home <br />development. Sixty plus additional households having access to the lake front will decrease <br />property values of homeowners already on the lake. <br />Mr. Herbst explained that Pemtom does not own the land at the end of the lake, nor is it <br />owned by either City. Exploring land purchase possibilities with fhe St. Paul Water Utility is <br />a good idea. Concern for property values as a result of new subdivisions is legitimate. His <br />company has done a number of subdivisions, i.e., Carson's Bay in Minnetonka where all are <br />allowed access to the lake. It is an added plus to the neighborhood if fishing and perhaps <br />canoeing can be allowed. <br />Mr. Sommer responded that Lake Minnetonka is much bigger and not a fair comparison. He <br />does not believe the size of Twin Lake can accommodate public access. <br />Mayor Hanson asked what the DNR classification is of Twin Lake. <br />Mr. Marty Walsh, Park Superintendent, Vadnais Heights, answered that it is classified as a <br />recreational lake. <br />Mr. Sommer stated that originally the lake had an environmental classification but was <br />changed in 1987, at the request of Vadnais Heights. <br />Banovetz stated that she appreciated residents' concerns about the lake and the number of <br />docks, but she perceives the lake issue as separate from the park issue. There can be a park <br />without a dock, and she would like to see the paz~k dedication issue resolved before resolving <br />the issue of how ma~iy docks will be allowed. <br />One member of the audience disagreed and stated that the two issues are intertwined. If the <br />park is near the lake, it will be very difficult to prohibit lake access. <br />Mr. Ken Wehrle, Chair of Department o£ Recreation, Little Canada, stated that he sees the <br />water surface uses as a critical issue. No matter what kind of development is built or <br />rest~•ictions to access, there has to be agreement on what surface uses will be allowed on the <br />lake. Once that issue is decided, then the park location can be decided. <br />3 <br />